No pay leave
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: www
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CX, like all other airlines, will have 65 implemented soon. On what terms remains to be determined. Be sure however that the issue is not of if, but when. The next year or so will establish some precedent setting court cases involving age discrimination. The only thing as certain as this is the fact that all FO's/So's are against 65...until THEY make captain. 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the last time we had 'no pay leave', most of us agreed in order to preserve the jobs of our more junior colleagues who may be laid off otherwise
are you trying to kid 
. Yeah and if ever you were a soldier in battle you would have thrown yourself on that live grenade to save your buddies. 
We all took it because a) it was a nice little well deserved break b) we were intimidated in taking it.
How grand of you now to twist it around and make it seem that you did it out of honorable reasons. A true hero!
The only thing as certain as this is the fact that all FO's/So's are against 65...until THEY make captain. 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sunny Downunder
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATY and all,
Weve had this conversation before but.
I and most other F/O's and S/O's are not against RA65 even though it will extend our time to command, we know that it's coming at some point in time. All we want is a fair deal on the BPP!
No if the company says you can stay on til 65 on A scales but the 1500 F/O's and S/O's will not get BPP, well i don't know about you but that doesn't seem like a fair deal to me!!
We shouldn't be slagging off the senior crew for wanting to stay till 65 and you shouldn't be slagging the junior crew for not wanting you to stay till 65, we should be at the company for not giving us all a fair deal!!
Weve had this conversation before but.
I and most other F/O's and S/O's are not against RA65 even though it will extend our time to command, we know that it's coming at some point in time. All we want is a fair deal on the BPP!
No if the company says you can stay on til 65 on A scales but the 1500 F/O's and S/O's will not get BPP, well i don't know about you but that doesn't seem like a fair deal to me!!
We shouldn't be slagging off the senior crew for wanting to stay till 65 and you shouldn't be slagging the junior crew for not wanting you to stay till 65, we should be at the company for not giving us all a fair deal!!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: HKG
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reality of it as I see it is that CX will do nothing about the BPP situation untill HKG labour law changes. Once that happens the company will be able to ignore the contractual obligation to pay bypass due to the fact that not letting guys stay past 55 will be illegal.
This is about to happen on some bases where labour law already supports the guys who dont want to retire at 55. Mark my words - it won't be openly stated but guys extending on bases will soon not generate bypass pay anymore - the company will claim that the contract only allows for bypass in case of CX extending a CPT and therefore willingly hold back an FO. If the law requires it then CX will claim its not their doing and therefore you can go claim your bypass compensation from the Aussie/Pommie/US government!!
FO and SO's can basically kiss it goodbye.
This is about to happen on some bases where labour law already supports the guys who dont want to retire at 55. Mark my words - it won't be openly stated but guys extending on bases will soon not generate bypass pay anymore - the company will claim that the contract only allows for bypass in case of CX extending a CPT and therefore willingly hold back an FO. If the law requires it then CX will claim its not their doing and therefore you can go claim your bypass compensation from the Aussie/Pommie/US government!!
FO and SO's can basically kiss it goodbye.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless the AOA/TUPE "negotiators" manage to outsmart themselves, again, having allowed the company to run away from a very good deal for people who have put in/taken a lot from their time in Cathay.
I accept that BPP is enshrined in industrial agreements; however, look up "bypass" in the dictionary. When the majority of recipients are failed cmd trainees, I have to ask is BPP a sensible thing in these turbulent times?
What was the thread again?
I accept that BPP is enshrined in industrial agreements; however, look up "bypass" in the dictionary. When the majority of recipients are failed cmd trainees, I have to ask is BPP a sensible thing in these turbulent times?
What was the thread again?
yokebearer
Wrong. Had a conversation with a lawyer buddy of mine in Sydney a few months ago about this very thing. All the possible new age discrimination laws will do is invalidate the compulsory 55 year old retirement age. Bypass pay has nothing to do with the age discrimination laws and as such will still be a valid part of our contract, i.e. as a cockpit crew passes 55 years old and wants to continue to 65 or anywhere in between, it will result in bypass pay being paid for the next crewmember entitled to it on the seniority list. Ask yourself this question. Why is the company so keen to have a retirement age 65 deal done? It isn’t through the goodness of their heart or even because of the expansion. It is because they are desperate not to have to pay the wave of bypass pay that would result in the change of the age discrimination laws.
The reality of it as I see it is that CX will do nothing about the BPP situation untill HKG labour law changes. Once that happens the company will be able to ignore the contractual obligation to pay bypass due to the fact that not letting guys stay past 55 will be illegal.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel. A significant proportion of cat B'd F/O's are there for reasons other than their command ability. Cx paying them bypass pay somewhat alleviates the Cx inspired vindictiveness that has delayed their command in the first place.
Unfortunately, I don't think 404's friend has read the actual words in our contract. The bypass paragraph only mentions NRA (normal retirement age). If NRA 65 is forced upon us then it's unlikely that we could enforce bypass pay to be paid for Capt's working beyond 55.
Unfortunately, I don't think 404's friend has read the actual words in our contract. The bypass paragraph only mentions NRA (normal retirement age). If NRA 65 is forced upon us then it's unlikely that we could enforce bypass pay to be paid for Capt's working beyond 55.
Loopdeloop
Ah no it doesn’t. Section 10, Bypass Pay mentions “The Retirement Age”. Section 36, Retirement mentions “Normal retirement age IS 55”. My buddy hasn’t read my contract but I have.
Ah no it doesn’t. Section 10, Bypass Pay mentions “The Retirement Age”. Section 36, Retirement mentions “Normal retirement age IS 55”. My buddy hasn’t read my contract but I have.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404. What I'm suggesting is that it may well be that NRA 65 is forced upon us by the recent court case. Hence section 36 would now have NRA 65 by law. Section 10 would then, with the words unchanged, mean no bypass pay unless pilots are extended beyond the new NRA.
Many people would then be disadvantaged by this change so a new court case would probably be the result.
In these unusual circumstances I'm hoping that the UK court finds in the company's favour so that we can negotiate RA 65 without disadvantaging all those below the rank of captain!
Many people would then be disadvantaged by this change so a new court case would probably be the result.
In these unusual circumstances I'm hoping that the UK court finds in the company's favour so that we can negotiate RA 65 without disadvantaging all those below the rank of captain!
Loopdeloop
Section 36 only has to be changed if the Anti Discrimination laws change and if I want Section 36 changed. My understanding and I will try and confirm it with my buddy this weekend, is that if I or any other crew don’t wish to have RA65 then section 36 “RA55” stands and hence section 10. Can you think of any other reason why the company would be so keen for us to change it?
Section 36 only has to be changed if the Anti Discrimination laws change and if I want Section 36 changed. My understanding and I will try and confirm it with my buddy this weekend, is that if I or any other crew don’t wish to have RA65 then section 36 “RA55” stands and hence section 10. Can you think of any other reason why the company would be so keen for us to change it?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One Man's take
We are all on different Contracts and now that Cathay stores our Contracts electronically, they believe they are liberty to amend them as they see fit.
However, the Contract I signed is Veta COS 1999. Frankly, any amendments made to that originating document without my consent are not relevant.
BPP is Clause 9 and Retirement is Clause 35 in my Contract and I shall use that numbering. I understand these clauses are similar, if not identical, in all our Contracts (except COS08) but may have different numbering. By way of Clause 9, retention of Captains beyond the Retirement Age (RA) triggers BPP. Clause 35 defines Normal Retirement Age as 55th Birthday.
The question is, does a change in Cathay's RA Policy change my Contract? Again, my premise is that without my consent the wording stays the same. The company could have, and chose not to, put in my contract any phrases such as "Retirement Age as amended by Statute or Company Policy". You note such phrases litter other Clauses, but not this one.
It is important to look at what the intention of the parties were upon signing. Somewhat uniquely in terms of Employment, I was offer a "career plan" that was based upon a stovepipe Seniority List, and BPP is my contractual compensation for that stovepipe becoming blocked. It matters not to me the reasons why the stovepipe becomes blocked and seemingly it didn't matter to the company who sought no Contractual protection either.
In short, the reasons to a blockage to career progression are not my concern. The fact that career progression is blocked is the only concern.
However, the Contract I signed is Veta COS 1999. Frankly, any amendments made to that originating document without my consent are not relevant.
BPP is Clause 9 and Retirement is Clause 35 in my Contract and I shall use that numbering. I understand these clauses are similar, if not identical, in all our Contracts (except COS08) but may have different numbering. By way of Clause 9, retention of Captains beyond the Retirement Age (RA) triggers BPP. Clause 35 defines Normal Retirement Age as 55th Birthday.
The question is, does a change in Cathay's RA Policy change my Contract? Again, my premise is that without my consent the wording stays the same. The company could have, and chose not to, put in my contract any phrases such as "Retirement Age as amended by Statute or Company Policy". You note such phrases litter other Clauses, but not this one.
It is important to look at what the intention of the parties were upon signing. Somewhat uniquely in terms of Employment, I was offer a "career plan" that was based upon a stovepipe Seniority List, and BPP is my contractual compensation for that stovepipe becoming blocked. It matters not to me the reasons why the stovepipe becomes blocked and seemingly it didn't matter to the company who sought no Contractual protection either.
In short, the reasons to a blockage to career progression are not my concern. The fact that career progression is blocked is the only concern.
Last edited by Liam Gallagher; 23rd Oct 2008 at 03:47.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be A Man
Stop this petting whinging about who is on what conditions. Everyone in this company, including YOU accepted the conditions you were offered and were not dragged here kicking and screaming. If you don't like the conditions you accepted then find alternative employment that meets your expectations - be a Man.
Stop blowing rumours up into issues that are figments of your imagination and concentrate on putting your efforts into actively supporting the whole pilot body, this is the only way everyone wins - everyone pulls together to protect each other.
Don't forget that 60% of the Check and Trainers are over 50. Do you seriously believe the Company will wave bye to these guys so they can keep the Junior Crew. So who will be completing the C & T to ensure all the Junior guys have valid licences.
Stop blowing rumours up into issues that are figments of your imagination and concentrate on putting your efforts into actively supporting the whole pilot body, this is the only way everyone wins - everyone pulls together to protect each other.
Don't forget that 60% of the Check and Trainers are over 50. Do you seriously believe the Company will wave bye to these guys so they can keep the Junior Crew. So who will be completing the C & T to ensure all the Junior guys have valid licences.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread creep
I thought the topic was "no pay leave"?
The current situation is more similar to the asian financial crisis then the SARS epidemic or 9/11 disaster, although on a different scale.
Back in the financial crisis a decade ago, we flew empty aircraft around for quite a while. Voluntary unpaid leave was offered and commonly taken by cockpit crew, cabin crew and ground staff. If you take less than a month off unpaid, you still get to receive your housing allowance! It is interesting, that voluntary unpaid leave has not even been advertised yet.
What followed the asian financial crisis was more concerning as a possible lesson for our immediate future.
1. The first event was the "night of the long knives" where numerous ground staff, including support staff in Flight Operations lost their jobs. This may have partly been associated with the move to CLK. Politically, I think it is now more difficult for CX to shed hundreds of ground/office staff these days. More likely, a future strategy would be another "new contract", to cut costs.
2. Next came a new contract for cabin crew (options 1-2-3), basically increasing their overtime threshold from 72 to 76 hours.This included a voluntary redundancy programe aimed at senior crew.
3. The pilots came last, with a new contract for "A scale" pilots where pay cuts were tied to share options. Voluntary redundancies also featured. This episode fermented dissent which grew into the 2001 dispute where ultimately individual pilots were fired, demoted or otherwise victimized and RP2001 was forced upon the remainder.
I am not too concerned with the prospect of an en-masse special leave programe in the immediate future, as per SARS in 2003.
The track record of our Management would suggest that they are currently busy planning our new contract.
The current situation is more similar to the asian financial crisis then the SARS epidemic or 9/11 disaster, although on a different scale.
Back in the financial crisis a decade ago, we flew empty aircraft around for quite a while. Voluntary unpaid leave was offered and commonly taken by cockpit crew, cabin crew and ground staff. If you take less than a month off unpaid, you still get to receive your housing allowance! It is interesting, that voluntary unpaid leave has not even been advertised yet.
What followed the asian financial crisis was more concerning as a possible lesson for our immediate future.
1. The first event was the "night of the long knives" where numerous ground staff, including support staff in Flight Operations lost their jobs. This may have partly been associated with the move to CLK. Politically, I think it is now more difficult for CX to shed hundreds of ground/office staff these days. More likely, a future strategy would be another "new contract", to cut costs.
2. Next came a new contract for cabin crew (options 1-2-3), basically increasing their overtime threshold from 72 to 76 hours.This included a voluntary redundancy programe aimed at senior crew.
3. The pilots came last, with a new contract for "A scale" pilots where pay cuts were tied to share options. Voluntary redundancies also featured. This episode fermented dissent which grew into the 2001 dispute where ultimately individual pilots were fired, demoted or otherwise victimized and RP2001 was forced upon the remainder.
I am not too concerned with the prospect of an en-masse special leave programe in the immediate future, as per SARS in 2003.
The track record of our Management would suggest that they are currently busy planning our new contract.
Last edited by jonathon68; 23rd Oct 2008 at 16:15. Reason: speeling
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AsiaMiles
If your post was directed at me..... you must be new and/or unable to read...
I am not whinging about other people being on different conditions; just stating a fact and in stating that fact I highlight the difficulties we (collectively) have when dealing with a change in RA.
In this thread, I don't hear anyone whinging about the conditions they joined on. In fact, myself and others want the terms of joining contracts honoured.
If this downturn develops into something more serious; I do believe CX will "wave bye" to senior crew. Does the phrase VSS mean anything to you?
I am not whinging about other people being on different conditions; just stating a fact and in stating that fact I highlight the difficulties we (collectively) have when dealing with a change in RA.
In this thread, I don't hear anyone whinging about the conditions they joined on. In fact, myself and others want the terms of joining contracts honoured.
If this downturn develops into something more serious; I do believe CX will "wave bye" to senior crew. Does the phrase VSS mean anything to you?
